Question about signature campaigns - paid advertising, or personal endorsements? - page 2.

examplens

legendary

Activity: 3472

Merit: 3507

Crypto Swap Exchange

Quote from: BenCodie on October 26, 2023, 05:39:25 AM

If a bitcointalk user is wearing a paid signature for a service, should readers view them as either personal endorsements from that bitcointalk user?

Yes, of course. The moment you enter the signature of a business, you become part of it. You don't have the power to make decisions, but you are certainly some kind of representative. Don't the managers select the participants by selecting the best offered? Probably because the owners want the best users to represent them.

What I think is a more interesting question, is how many users actually do any research about campaign owners before applying for a sig. campaign. It's a bit disappointing when I see a user in a well-paid campaign, who doesn't even know about ANN or has never visited the website of the service they promote.
icopress started encouraging campaign participants to test the service they are promoting

Quote from: icopress on August 21, 2023, 07:36:16 AM

Therefore, please note that I will periodically ask you for favors, and please treat my words with understanding and seriousness, (for example, to begin with, I would like each of you to test MixTum and share your experience).

Jawhead999

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1208

I think it's not really that different between advertisement and personal endorsements? Huh

In the end you're promoting a project and you would receive negative feedback when you wear a signature from completely scam project.

Someone who participated in signature campaign need to understand both advantages and disadvantages. It's not make sense when you're wear centralized exchange which have mandatory KYC rule, but you're saying if centralized exchange is bad.

You're free to say anything that you want, but it's not really good for the brands you're promoting.

lovesmayfamilis

legendary

Activity: 2072

Merit: 4265

✿♥‿♥✿

During my presence on the forum, I participated in two subscription campaigns. The first one was a long time ago and short-lived, but of course, I made my conclusions about the legality, and I also trusted the manager who carried it out. Today’s signature is fully understood and approved by me since I used the Best Change aggregator before I learned about Bitcoin and the forum, so I can say that for me, participation in this company is a great honor, and approval goes without saying.

mocacinno

legendary

Activity: 3584

Merit: 5248

https://merel.mobi => buy facemasks with BTC/LTC

Personally, i think it's a grey area... I think it's clear to everybody that wearing a signature for whatever product or service is an advertisement and not a (very) personal endorsement. As with any advertisement, a user should use his/her due diligence.

This being said, the person wearing the signature is responsible for putting the advertisement "out there", so if he/she is pushing an advertisement for a scam service, he remains responsible for distributing said ad (eventough it's still the enduser that should recognize an advertisement as being an advertisement, and check stuff out before he/she gets scammed).

Personally, i try to only join signature campaigns for products i use myself (maybe with the exception of services that are already trusted in the community by the time i join the campaign)... This was the case for chipmixer, and it's the case for my current signature. It's possible they turn scam after i've tested/used them, and in this case it's my responsability to remove the signature as soon as i'm aware of the problems with the service in my signature space.

jokers10

legendary

Activity: 1974

Merit: 3049

Quote from: BenCodie on October 26, 2023, 05:39:25 AM

If a bitcointalk user is wearing a paid signature for a service, should readers view them as either personal endorsements from that bitcointalk user?

What is your opinion?

My opinion:
The advertisement should be considered as a paid advertisement, not a personal endorsement from the wearer.
However, users should be responsible for ensuring that the signature they are wearing is not a scam.
Similarly, readers should do their own research & due diligence before using any service, including ones within paid advertisements/signatures.

Look at what's happening with those ones who wear signatures of known on the forum scam 1xbit. So right, some investigation is required.

But how can we be sure that some project will become a scam before it scams? Sometimes we can get some hints, sometimes not. Whirlwind scam was unexpected. Bernard Madoff worked for dozens of years and was a respected financier. So DYOR is what expected each time.

When you see a billboard you anyway think if what is advertised there is suitable for you. The same about forum signatures. Of course promoting some known scam is unacceptable, but everyone should keep in mind that each their financial decision is a matter of their own responsibility, so to recheck everything by themselves.

hugeblack

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 4002

A paid signature is a form of trust in you. The user will click on the signature or prefer to use the service because he trusts you or sees that you provide high-quality posts, so what you ads will be a good thing.

These are the same reasons why advertising companies pay millions to Messi and Ronaldo, so you must try as much as possible to avoid advertising for scam/HYIP, or at least stop advertising for these services whenever you are certain that they are scammers.

Quote from: BenCodie on October 26, 2023, 05:39:25 AM

My opinion:
The advertisement should be considered as a paid advertisement, not a personal endorsement from the wearer.
However, users should be responsible for ensuring that the signature they are wearing is not a scam.

If not personal endorsement, why encourage others to use it? Advertising is encouraging others to use it.

BenCodie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1037

Reserved for deleted posts.

Deleted post: 1mau
Reason: involving other threads in the topic discussion, deviating from the topic of discussion, claiming this thread is in direct response to the discussions he has pointed out (not true, I'm here to learn what the community thinks about what has been asked, so that I and others can have peace of mind from these clowns in the future)

Post:

Quote from: ?? on ??

Important to read: this topic was taken out of context by BenCodie in an attempt to get his preferred answers.

Here's where it started: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63055617
Well, actually here already: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.63017210

The question was about BenCodie's statement, while participating in a gambling signature campaign:

View this as an example.

Quote from: 1miau on October 17, 2023, 08:08:44 PM

Where the OP (CryptopreneuerBrainboss) pointed out that:

Quote from: CryptopreneurBrainboss on February 28, 2019, 07:04:58 AM

[2]: Join a campaign you agree with and not just for the payout.

That's why BenCodie created the poll, to "prove us wrong" and to do that, he's taking the question out of context.
Now, BenCodie says, that we would have said that "the wearer encourages you to use the advertised service". No one ever said that.

What we said is: wearing a paid signature is an endorsement:
The brand name appears directly right to our forum name and our forum profile. High paying campaigns are selecting the most reputable forum members for a reason.
Therefore, we should select the campaigns carefully and if we hate gambling, think gambling is harmful and we oppose gambling, it's hyporitical to join such a gambling campaign just for the sake of getting a few sats.
As a participant in such a campaign, we should be able to say about the service: "yes, the advertised service is a service I can get behind"

What any viewer does, when coming over our signatures is not our issue. It's not something like "hey, please use this service in my signature", like written by OP.
So we, as a participant in that campaign, should always be able to get behind the advertised project. Otherwise, we should not join that campaign.

The solution for BenCodie: Don't join gambling signature campaigns, if you really hate gambling and think it's harmful. Otherwise, you would be "harmful" as well by wearing that paid signature. Cheesy

And that's exactly, what CryptopreneurBrainboss pointed out in his topic.

[/size]

BenCodie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1037

If a bitcointalk user is wearing a paid signature for a service, should readers view them as either personal endorsements from that bitcointalk user?

What is your opinion?

My opinion:
The advertisement should be considered as a paid advertisement, not a personal endorsement from the wearer.
However, users should be responsible for ensuring that the signature they are wearing is not a scam.
Similarly, readers should do their own research & due diligence before using any service, including ones within paid advertisements/signatures.

This thread is self moderated as it is for opinions on this topic only and I'd like to keep it that way. I don't want to censor people though, so I posts that are not providing an opinion or providing relevant value to the conversation will be removed and quoted in the second post.

Topic: Question about signature campaigns - paid advertising, or personal endorsements? - page 2. (Read 429 times)